Thursday, September 22, 2005

A Lady's Right . . . ?

No doubt a staunch feminist like Hillary Clinton would be outraged by the old saying, "It's a lady's right to change her mind."

But that's exactly what it appears she's done. According to this Drudge flash back in July, Hillary intended to vote for Roberts -- no doubt to boost her moderate credentials in preparation for a presidential run. But today, she announced that she would vote against Judge Roberts.

Why the change -- which puts Hillary to the left of Russ Feingold? Could be two things. First, she lacks the flexibility to tack right on Roberts because, unlike Feingold, she hasn't opposed the war in Iraq. Second, she may hear the hoofbeats of loony left favorite Al Gore growing ever louder.

Bush hasn't changed his mind. He went into Iraq because an enemy of the United States had weapons of mass destruction that could be used against us. Having disposed of that enemy, Bush has to make sure a stable democracy is left behind. He’ll stay until the Iraqis can defend themselves (and help defend us) from the terrorists. A timetable would simply help the enemies put together their own timetable of terror. This is a different war than any previously fought by our nation.

Bush and Clinton are very different. Bush is a person of backbone and integrity. Hillary will do whatever it takes to get elected.

Nice try, KB. But where's the backbone from the president on the finances?

This president is the least fiscally responsible president in history. Not recent years. History. He cannot say "no" to a spending bill, nor can he say "no" to a tax cut. If you know of a principle of integrity in there, I'd enjoy hearing about it. (Stupidity is not a principle.)

As to Hillary, I agree with Carol nonetheless. I know of no good-faith reason to declare a Yes vote early on and then shift to No based on anything in Roberts' performance. It's about positioning and calculating and what-not.

It's awful. It's disgusting. And it makes her different from the other senators . . . in some respect I'm sure.

Good point House. I don't agree with everything Bush has done: he spends too much, want to reward illegal immigrants with a guest worker program, wants to spend billions to go to Mars, etc. I do feel, however, that he does what he thinks is good for the country and does not bend with the political winds like Hillary.

Actually KB, I can think of examples where Bush did bend to political wind (the steel tariff nonsense comes to mind).

I can also think of instances where Mrs. Clinton stood her ground for the good of the country. She authorized the action against Iraq, but then she also argued (unsuccessfully) for a tax hike to pay for it.

Her vote was bending to the wind, where the tax hike talk was being a liberal? Or could she just have taken a consistent and responsible position to both take action and pay for it?

Here's a proposition on which we can agree. Carol Liebau, can you just run for president?